lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 00/44] ldisc patchset
From
Date
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 00:25 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 04:36 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> >> Have you considered building your ldlock based on lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
> >> instead ? i.e. having an internal spinlock to protect the ldisc
> >> reference count and the reader and writer queues. This would seem much
> >> simpler get right. The downside would be that a spinlock would be
> >> taken for a short time whenever an ldisc reference is taken or
> >> released. I don't expect that the internal spinlock would get
> >> significant contention ?
> >
> > That would have been too easy :)
> >
> > TBH, I hadn't considered it until I was most the way through a working
> > atomic version. I had already split the reader/writer wait lists. And
> > figured out how to always use the wait bias for every waiting reader and
> > writer -- rather than the rwsem way of testing for an empty list --
> > which made the timeout handling easier.
> >
> > At the time, the only thing that I was still struggling with was
> > recursion, and the spinlock flavor wasn't going to fix that. So I just
> > kept with the atomic flavor.
>
> Its not too late to run away from it and preserve your sanity (as well
> as that of the next person working on the tty layer :)

The long-term plan is to migrate it to lib so it won't be a maintenance
burden to tty.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-14 13:21    [W:0.111 / U:4.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site